Trump reaction

Note: this section will not be G-Rated … Not even PG … it will be at least R …

WARNING: There will be obscenities and profane language past this point. I have been politic; you have been warned!

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON! America (especially in its national media) is going fucking bonkers because one of its political leadership candidates talks of bawdy things (in a younger iteration) and shows that he is a God-damn, arrogant, loud-mouthed, profane, self-centered, self-absorbed, ruthless, son-of-a-bitch … so what else is new. Get the fuck over it. It ain’t the first time it has happened.

People are going ape-shit crazy calling him to withdraw his candidacy because he told some broadcast flunky off mic that he likes to fondle pretty women … what a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Damn, if there is a male in the room over, let’s say, 45 who hasn’t engaged in bowdlerized, locker-room talk about women and braggadocio about what they would like to do … excepting possibly those men who are gayer that the three-dollar bill … I probably would call them a liar and be right. I can’t say much about people younger than that because I haven’t sat in on many of their conversations, but what I have heard makes me think they aren’t much different.

Folks, take a fucking chill pill. The God-damned politically correct shit has to stop.

The problem with Trump is that he actually talks like he is one of the plebeians … you know, us common folks who actually worked for a God-damn living and not made a living getting paid by the government/state for a career.

I find all this faux-horror at Trump’s tax returns, his sexually explicit talks with people (especially those with recording devices, which is stupid, but then, what the hell, we live in a gotcha by the balls society these days), so freakingly fucking hypocritical that it sort of makes me want to stage a French Revolution here in the US? Trot out the guillotine for the “aristocracy”!!!!

Where is the Red Queen when we need her? Off with their fucking heads! 

I guess I have fallen a long way from my perch among the elites of the world as a college graduate who was the editor of one of the 1600 daily newspapers (at the time) in the USofA, assistant editor at another, editor at a three-times a week paper, and editor of four different weekly newspapers, not including a weekly and an every-other-day newspaper I produced in a war zone.

I no longer have much patience with progressives and those who education or position places them above the fucking masses. I am reminded to tell them, despite your fucking smarts, or God-damn worthless pieces of paper, social, economic or political positions, you stupid over-educated dumbshit assholes, you still put your panties on one leg at a time just like the rest of us idiots.

You know the people you find deplorable may be crude and rude, but they are people. They might not have high-fluting degrees or education, or even money or wealth, but they still are functioning human beings, who can – when called upon – actually have a thought or two in their head … and those thoughts just might be worth listening to. A lot may be stupid or silly thoughts, but given the facts, their common sense will usually win out.

So, Trump is a ruthless, fucking billionaire (or just a multi-millionaire, what does it matter) corporate slob of a businessman, that has never stopped such people from running and serving in public office before. Cue the damn Virginia planter class or the fucking Ivy League country club shit heads

The question you really should be asking yourself, you fucking dumbbells, is has he broken the law? How did he make those billions? By himself or surrounding himself and delegating to a vast corps of really competent deplorables?   I really don’t think he did it selling favors, like a former Senator from New York and Secretary of State, along with her sexually obsessed husband who is an ex-president now, who actually did “it” with a God-damn intern in the Oval Office … or was it her oval orifice … shit, I don’t even know any more ... much less really give a shit.

How many laws, lies, and other shit does Trump’s leading opponent have to break, say and do before you get the message that she really is a bunch of crappola. Do you really want that crappola? Do you really want the fucking status quo candidate to keep things running down the same God-damn track we have been going for the last 10 or so years … so be it … vote for the piece of shit.

Another question: Why is the “establishment” fucking going freaking ape-shit over the possibility of Trump being president? What is it they really are so fucking scared-shitless about? Do they know something about the checks and balances built into our system of governance that we don’t know that makes them think we can’t survive a loose-cannon? What is it that we have had for the last 25 fucking years? Cannons lashed down so tight their pussies squeak? I think they are just afraid he will upset the status quo and maybe, just maybe, fucking change the way things have been run in our fucking capital for that last shitting century or so. Maybe that is the change we need, fucking stupid America.

Now I am not saying anybody should vote for the jerk Trump, or anyone else, but I am saying look at what they say they want to do … ask yourself if those things are what you really want done or if they really are sustainable or just pipe dreams … or just products of your own envy of those who have shit you don’t. … then reach down and vote for the candidate who can win AND do the least amount damage to what freedoms you, as an individual, still have in this country.

One last point, a historical one: The last time the elite was in this much of an uproar, I think, was 1828. You know when that rude, crude and obscene Tennessean Andrew Jackson was elected and the Virginia planter class and the New England lawyers had a hissy fit over this frontier braggart capturing the White House. He was a populist too, if I remember my history correctly and really changed the course of politics and the shape of the American democratic republic. Is that what they are so afraid of?

Anyway, I apologize for my fucking profanity, but I am becoming more and more like the old fucking grunt soldier I was part time, rather than the urbane, cosmopolitan, liberal arts college-educated elite journalist I once was.

Still, I raise my rye on the rocks to all of you who are a) Americans and b) deign to read this rant. (tonight is was Canadian rye, tomorrow night it will be my Gordon’s vodka … I alternate nights on which poison I drink on the rocks).

May you all find your path blessed by the Divine, and you have the strength and courage to endure whatever travails may lie ahead of you personally and (if it so applies) as an American.

 

Footnote: This is a succinct summation why I don't give a fucking rat's ass about Trump's "hot-mic moment". OK, I am done

The Supremes miss the boat

You have got to hand it to the Supreme Court of the United States: They probably have done more damage to the country than they realize.

In two days, in my opinion (and one shared by many people), the justices in split decisions have done considerable damage to the rule of law in the United States.

Granted, I am not saying that the justices don’t have that power, because they do, and however wrong I, or anyone else, may think their reasoning and conclusions may be, what they say is how the law is supposed to be interpreted and applied in the United States. That is the compact we live under. I don’t have to like it. You don’t have to like it.

But love or hate the decisions they make we have to accept them as the new rules that govern the nation (at least until the political process can come up with a new way someway to interpret the compact that stands the scrutiny of the justices). If you don’t like that, then move to another country.

Now, having said all that, I think the Court’s rulings on both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and on “gay” marriage are faulty. Both of them for basically the same reason: They chose to redefine words with established definitions.

To some people this may not seem to be a big deal, but in the realm of the law, its rules live and die on definitions. How words are defined is established by tradition and precedent, and in both these cases the concurring justices chose essentially to say that neither tradition nor precedent was enough to warrant not changing the definitions.

Now, liberals and progressives will tell you this is as it should be because words evolve, the language evolves and over time things mean differently than they did before. Only in these cases, that really is not the situation. The justices just decided it was.

For example: the word “state” in the context of the U.S. Constitution and Congressional legislation has a pretty specific meaning that has been held for roughly 228 years. That definition is no longer valid. When legislation or regulatory rules are made now, rather than meaning just the political subdivision of US called the “state” (of which there are 50 of them), the word now means either the states (in the traditional sense) or the federal government, depending on how you want to interpret it in the political/social context.

I understand the argument that ruling the PP&ACA (Obamacare) would have adversely impacted millions of Americans and I imagine that played a significant role in the thinking of the justices. The court is loath to play bull in the china shop with the U.S. economy and usually seeks ways to avoid doing it. Of course, the court could have done as it did 30+ years ago with the bankruptcy code and stayed striking it down in Toto and told Congress it had six months to fix the problem. But that would not have served the ends of those on the liberal end of the court whose political view of the world is that role of the government is expansive and such things such as health care are a right (wrong … but that is an argument for another day).

The justices did the same thing with granting equal rights to same sex marriages.

Look, I have no problem granting two people of the same sex who wish to enter into a contractual relationship (which, legally, is all “marriage” is) and receiving government benefits equal to those granted “married” couples. No problem whatsoever. But you have to recognize that this really isn’t about people loving each other or living together; it is about those benefits. All the rest really is just window dressing.

Granted, it is an effort by a minority of our population trying legislate social acceptance of behavior which is, by any estimation, a tad bit on the abnormal side and in most cultures is considered something other than acceptable behavior. In some it may be tolerated more than others but pretty much universally it is considered aberrant.

So, the justices decided, based pretty much on a loud and orchestrated campaign of political correctness, to say that such pairings had right to be called “marriages” and were indeed a constitutional right (S0 that they had to be recognized in all 50 states). In essence, they redefined the millennia old meaning of a word in almost all cultures and religions to fit what they thought was correct in our evolving world.

The court, however, was correct in saying what is a contractual right in one state has to be in all states. So, in that sense, they did do something right.

To me, at this junction, I don’t have a dog in this fight. My objection is to the laisse faire playing with the language. Now, I know this is what lawyers and judges do all the time and it is what they get paid to do. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.

I see it as an assault on the rule of law, for remember the law hinges on words and how they are defined. Start changing the definitions and you tear at the foundations of the law. And if people can change definitions at will, then we become a nation of men and not law, as the old saying goes.

In one footnote, I would say that this ruling opens the door to polygamy becoming a constitutional right. You might say “nah, never happen”, but 20 years ago people were saying the same thing about gay marriage.

Autumn of life

First, I want to apologize to anyone who has followed this blog in the past: I have been woefully bad about updating, having somewhat abandoned you all to make links on my Facebook page. Richard Browne on Facebook

It has been easier to post links with brief commentary there, but I have decided to take the time at this point to more fully develop my headline thesis and Facebook is inadequate vehicle for that.

Secondly, I want to apologize for the lack of links that will be in this post, but a) I am lazy and b) I am going to credit you, the reader, as one who follows the news in the United States and therefore already will be able to understand the context in which my views are made.

Now, what do I mean by “Autumn of Life”? Am I referring to my own or do I have some larger portrait to paint? The answer to both is “yes”.

I recently reached the ripe old age of 66 and with my health being as it is, I am – I must realize and acknowledge – in the “autumn” of my existence. It doesn’t mean I plan to die tomorrow or sometime soon, but it is a possibility that will come to pass. Being an old codger with a few miles under my treads does tend to give me a perspective that I once would have applied only to my digressions into my studies of history – of American, of the World, of Western and other civilizations.

So as I read today’s headlines on the internet and read through the lead stories of the day, on one hand I have been struck by an increasing sense of doom and gloom, while occasionally I see flashes that there may yet be hope.

The problem in the U.S., to me at least, is that we have become too complacent, maybe even too apathetic, about who we are as Americans and what is expected of us as Americans. Understand, that for most Americans we take for granted a lifestyle that literally few, except maybe the very wealthy, around the world really can hope to achieve. But we assume that lifestyle as a right, and don’t realize it is a privilege that has been built on the hard work and discipline of our parents, their parents, etc.

It is our expectations that are at fault now and how we fail to acknowledge the basis for the life that those expectations are built upon. Over the course of my life, I have witnessed how the elevation of our expectations in outcome were not keeping pace with the expectations of what input it would take to achieve them.

It is, of course, de rigor now to teach every child that they can achieve anything they want to and that everyone can be a success. That concept is why we now downplay competition and celebrate mere participation. We do this to promote self-esteem in our young and a belief in their abilities … even if their abilities are not up to achieving their expectations. I remember the first year I played organized baseball, I had these visions of me driving the ball up the hill above our diamond and into the parking lot. I walked 13 times (I was a little kid and had a small strike zone) and I struck out 13 times. We forgot somewhere along the line that we also have to teach our progeny that what we want often is not what we get.

I remember a saying from my youth: Aim for the stars, but be willing to accept the moon, or even low-earth orbit, if that is what your abilities will carry you to.

It is called dealing with disappointment and dealing with the reality that sometimes what you want and what you can achieve are entirely different things.

For example, when I was a young man I would have given my eyeteeth to become a line officer in the US Navy or the US Coast Guard. It didn’t happen, but not for lack of trying. Events both in and out of my control augured against me and I was disappointed in nine different attempts. What that taught me, with each of the failures I had a long the way, was to fall back, regroup, and strike out again with a new objective in mind.

Over my life, I have had some successes and, if I am honest, many failures. It was the challenge of trying to pick up the pieces after each of the failures – an some probably should be legend – and go on. It is hard. It is not easy. However, I thank my parents for for somehow endowing me with the perseverance to keep going.

The problem I see with a large part of my nation these days is that we have lost the consensus of what it means to be an American … and even if to be called an American is a worthy thing. If you read much of the politically correct debate, you begin to wonder if being an American really is worth all we go through … especially if we who believe in the old American ideal were such evil and bad people.

We have lost the consensus of what is expected of the individual adult, or the role of faith is to play in our collective lives, or what role civil and community organizations are to play in our American civilization, or what the individual roles of city, county, state and federal governments are.

The role of the individual, as perceived by those rather smart white men who wrote the constitution that underlies our current republic, was guardian of his (sorry, certain groups were excluded, although that has been for the most part correct as a matter of law) own sustenance and future. It was not the government’s role (especially not the federal or state) to make sure the individual had a roof over his head or food on the table. The role of the individual, however, was to contribute to the success of his community and to stand in its defense … and in a larger sense, to his city, county, state and nation, as part of his obligation to it. It was the individual’s obligation to uphold the law through his own actions, rather than an expectation that the government, at what ever level, to enforce the law. All were to be treated equally by that law and it applied to everyone.

That perception, unfortunately, no longer applies. If it feels good and you can get away with it, it seems that today no one has an obligation to obey or uphold the law. In addition, that extends to those whose job it is to enforce the law. If, for whatever reason, it becomes expedient not to enforce the law, or to enforce it selectively, or in some cases rewrite the law by executive fiat, those who are charged with its uniform enforcement decline to do so.

In order to satisfy the political beliefs for some, rather than take the language at its face value, it is twisted and turned into something Orwellian to behold. George Orwell’s “NewSpeak” is alive and thriving in 21st Century America.

On one hand, there are those who believe – not as American tradition holds – that in the 21st Century the rights and beliefs of the individual no longer matter but the rights of the community and democracy trump the individual with the “government” as the arbiter. We see political candidates to date making it clear that it is their position in no uncertain terms.

For example, take firearms. Well, you have the right not to own one, but does that make it right to deny someone who wants to own one to be able to do so. Just because you are scared of guns does not necessarily correlate to a need to ban guns.

The Second Amendment makes it an inalienable right of the individual to keep and bear arms, as so many of the people who debated its adoption pointed out. And it was not just for hunting, but it was survival … survival against enemies of the Republic from both within and without. The government is not giving us this right as a privilege and it doesn’t have the privilege to take it away from American individuals without showing good and just cause. It is not up to the individual to prove that he or she worthy of the right; it is up to the government to prove that he or she is unworthy of the right.

Now, I know that is not a popular position with some of our elites, particularly among our media gatekeepers and pundits and others who consider themselves to be progressive. To them, we have “evolved” past the need for individuals to be willing to step and defend not only themselves but their communities “from all enemies foreign or domestic.” (I know that oath because I have taken it many times) To them, that is what we hire police and the military for, but I would disagree with them.

In our hubris, we are letting our expectations and wants get ahead of our abilities and capabilities. In our hubris, I would posit that my country has reached the autumn of its life. Those who are familiar with the Cycle of Democracy will understand what I am saying … if you are unfamiliar with it, then I beg forgiveness and ask you to research it.

For many decades now we have let those who want desperately for everyone to succeed and raise everyone to the the same level as everyone else raise expectations without pointing out that there is no free lunch. Everything comes with a price and what you want sometimes is beyond the reach of what you can afford. That this is true does not necessarily mean that you are failure – I can attest to that, for I don’t consider myself a failure … I may not have been perfect or roaring success who achieved all his goals without effort, but that doesn’t make me a failure.

Unfortunately, we have raised at least two, if not three and possibly going on four, generations who were not taught that while all things are possible, not all things are probable. That as individuals we have to be prepared for disappointments and that we will take losses, probably in greater proportions than our gains.

I once gave a poem to my step-son and commended it to his reading. I told him to listen, hear and attend to its words, for they are good rules to live your life by. I hope it has helped him … and I would recommend everyone, especially every adolescent and young adult to read it and pay heed. It is the poem “If” by the British author and poet Rudyard Kipling. I know there are those who will immediately dismiss it, given Kipling’s provenance, but they would be wrong. It truly is an eternal lesson that knows no race, religion, creed or era.

When I look at events of recent days, I am struck by the fact that evil does walk among us … and, yes, there are evil people out there. They feed upon the envy, resentment and hate that is being fanned every day by people on the internet, in the media, and in our political leadership. We cannot escape that truth. All we can do is prepare ourselves to cope with.

How do we do that? There are a number of things we can do, but it falls to individuals and not to “society” or “government”.

First, we can endeavor to live our own lives by the only one true and universal rule of life: Treat others as we would have them treat ourselves.

Easy to say, but difficult to do. We wish we were ruled by our reason, but the truth is we are move often ruled by our emotions and our passions. Still, we must learn that it truly is better to forgive rather than to let our anger and hate eat away at us and turn us into beasts we do not recognize.

The second thing may seem at odds with the first, but it is just as true: If we want peace, then we must be prepared for war.

Whether it is war at the individual level, the community level or the national level, we must be prepared to step forward and take whatever measures we can to combat evil when it comes … and it will come. This is not something we can farm out to mercenaries in the form of police or the military. This is something each of us must take on as our personal obligation, not just to ourselves, but also to our communities, our cities, our counties, our states, territories, commonwealths and districts, our nation … and probably, by extension, to our planet.

I say these things without consideration of color, or race, or ethnicity, or economic, or social status. It doesn’t matter to me. Unfortunately, for far too many Americans, it does matter these days. No longer is it important what the law says, or what people’s actions are in accordance with those laws, it only matters what someone’s perceive gender is, or sexual orientation, or color of their skin, or whether they are rich or poor or somewhere in between. This is wrong and is part of the evil that has brought autumn to our Republic.

If you have bore with me throughout this lengthy essay, I commend you. If you agree with it, I hope it inspires you; just as I hope it it inspires you to respond with a comment if you don’t agree with me.

 

Bad Republicans

The Republican conspiracy

I read this article on the Huffington Post and I about fell out of my chair laughing. Why? Because the author’s premise is so silly.

First … the Republicans. TEA Party-nics and conservatives are not Democrats or progressives. They are the opposition. You know, people who oppose you. They should be expected to do what they can to make your policies and plans fail.

Now, it doesn’t take a savant to figure out that they don’t agree with policies like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). So, if you are the elected representative of your particular area (and a majority of the people in the last election for your office voted for you) then it is pretty much a given that you represent at least some of their views and that should govern the way you vote. If your district doesn’t really like some law or policy, then it is your job to do what you can to overturn or change that policy.

The author of the article seems to think that Republicans are some terrible beasts because they don’t view the world through the same prism that he does. That is what is wrong with the world.

Reverse the shoe, say a war in Iraq. Is it not the right of the opponents of such a venture to do whatever they can to end it? It seems that was the progressives’ line just a few years ago.

Of course, they were chastised in much the same manner as the right is being assailed today. That is politics, folks.

I find it humorous to the absurd to watch various people and groups of people hammer their political opponents for their views in language that probably would have been reprehensible in my youth. However, the historian in me knows that the language of politics in the United States always has bordered on the rough and tumble.

I guess what I find most humorous is the view that everyone has to view the world through the same lens, the same philosophy, the same cultural view plate. I find it humorous, because it is so tragic and misguided that it really makes me want to despair, but I chose to laugh at my troubles rather than cry.

I wish, as Pappy used to say, I could knock some heads together in order to knock some sense into them.

People, we are all different. We all look at the world and see different visions. Depending on our experiences and cultural environment, we value different things. Some of these things we agree on the value of and others we profoundly disagree; however, the mere fact that we disagree doesn’t make us bad people.

Just because a person disagrees with you does not necessarily make that person evil … just different. Sometimes that person is evil, but it is not because they disagree with you.

The difference, as I see it, is a different view on how much responsibility the individual for his or her life. Are we, as individuals, supposed to be willing to accept the consequences of our choices? Are we supposed to be willing to accept that life is not fair and often sends adversity our way when we can ill afford it?

A lot of people say we are not. They say we are obligated to help all those less fortunate than we are. I would agree with part of that. I would say I have an personal obligation to make that choice, but that society, or the state, doesn’t not have the right to compel me to do it by force.

So to insist that anyone has a right to demand or compel another give them a good or service at a price less than they are willing to do it is, in my humble opinion, wrong. Even lifesaving medical care.

Another unfortunate aside: It seems to me that in our narcissism that seems to afflicted so many people, we seem to believe that we are supposed to live forever. Wrong answer, folks. We are mortal and every day here is a gift (that is why they call it “present”).

Sometimes, I think, in our quest for immortality, we forget that others have rights too. We forget it is not ours to demand that they forgo their rights just to our benefit. This is not to say that they can’t forgo those rights, but the choice is theirs and not ours.

Anyway, I love when progressives try to defend their demands, but it makes me want to laugh in their face when I hear them denigrate those who disagree with them. What was it Pappy used to tell me about the pot calling the kettle “black.”

Presidential discretion

Prosecutorial discretion: A definition and discussion

Perils of selective prosecution

The president of the United States, in the context of enforcing various laws passed by Congress and rules and regulations (with the force of law) written by various regulatory agencies of the Executive Branch, has cited “prosecutorial discretion” as the source of his power to basically say: Yes, that is the law, but I don’t like it so I am going to ignore the law and I am going to tell my agents in the executive branch not to enforce it.”

Question: Does prosecutorial discretion really give the president the right to ignore the law?

Where is the justice if the law is selectively enforced? Is it not more fair if the law is applied equally to all citizens, especially the same law?

The problems I have with President Barack Obama’s declaration that segments of his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare or the ACA) will not be enforced because his allies and administration failed to anticipate a host of unintended consequences (well, we are being generous here and assuming they are unintended) that have accompanied the rollout of the President’s signature legislature are legion.

I won’t go into the convoluted definitions and such that make it constitutional, or the cynical calculations that have gone into exempting this class or that group from the dictates of the Congressional legislation that was passed on a strictly party-line vote (i.e. no attempt at consensus). I am just dealing with the perception that this administration likes to favor one political faction over another. In other words, it is all about votes and maintaining political power for a favored few. That is wrong. The government should be bound to apply the law. The president is not king, nor an elected dictator like Caesar.

I know that is an idealistic view for me to take, but unfortunately, even the evil Wikipedia points out that selective prosecutions based on selective prosecutorial discretion is subject to unbelievable abuse.

Wikidpedia on Selective Discretion

“Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to select those against whom they want to enforce the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.

Selective enforcement in practice

Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates the Rule of Law, allowing those in authority to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, this almost inevitably leads to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.”

Yes, folks, this violates the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution and particularly the 4th, 5th, 6th, 76h, 8th and 14th Amendments.

Now, all you legal beagles out there can argue the picayune minutia of the ins and outs of  its application, but the concept of equal protection and equality before the law is the bedrock of the American concept of the “rule of law.” Without the protection of the rule of law, then what are we left with?

The President, it seems – whether it is enforcement of immigration law, voter intimidation, or his prized Obamacare law – seems to be saying: It doesn’t matter what the law says. It is what I say that matters.

Unfortunately, in many respects, he is correct. He is the one who is charged with enforcing the law, and his minions have a broad discretion as to how to go about it.

Now, I may not like it. You may not like it. A lot of people may not like it. However, it still may be within his power as the chief enforcer of the provisions of the Constitution, the statutory laws passed by Congress and all the administrative rules and regulations (i.e. laws) put in place by all the various governmental agencies to enforce vague laws passed by Congress, to decide how aggressive he will tell the agents of the government to enforce said legal issues.

In the case of Obamacare, he sounds like the fan of a losing sports team: Wait until next year to see anything done.

Deferring enforcement of unpopular laws, and vowing to veto attempts to repeal said laws, rules and regulations, is a way to try to game the system. I think that is wrong. Congress wrote the mess, it needs to correct it. And it can start by repealing the rules and regulations enacted by the regulatory agencies to enforce it.

Unfortunately, the incompetence of this administration all too often is overwhelmed by the incompetence and ineptitude of the loyal opposition. Maybe that is an expression of how truly our house is divided.

For America is a house divided, these days. There are those who see government as the solution and those who see the government as the problem … and never the twain shall meet.

IF one is to take election results at their face value then the divide is almost straight down the middle, give or take 2 or 3 percent on either side. That is why the White House was gained by a slim majority, the Senate is controlled by one party by a majority that can’t steamroll the opposition and the House is controlled by the loyal (or disloyal, depending on how partisan you want to be) opposition.

What the American people seem to be hungering for are consensus solutions to the problems that we are facing. Unfortunately, that consensus is eluding us because those who are in the position to do so have decided that it is not in their interest to compromise. Pox on all their houses.

Consensus maybe needed but the basis of our republic, our union, is that the rule of law shall prevail and that the citizen can expect that it will be enforced without preference or prejudice. It rarely is, but that is the standard we should demand.

This administration, however, apparently seems to be intent on casting away even the fig leaves used by its immediate predecessor, in its bid to establish an imperial presidency that ignores the rule of law in favor of its own interpretations.

Please, will someone stand up and start yelling that the emperor has no clothes on? Will someone inside the beltway at least try to invoke the checks and balances so carefully weighed by those disparate dead white men of property who designed the American constitutional system? It really is an incredible piece of work that we seem to to want to flush away in fit of 21st Century hubris.

Nuff said … I through ranting now (for the moment)

Obama still doesn’t get it.

I am not responsible. I am sorry, but it was not really my fault

 

President Barack Obama gave an televised interview this week where he said he was sorry that his actions led to thousands, if not millions, losing the health care insurance policies they liked after he had repeatedly promised they wouldn’t.

See, scream the liberals, progressives and his supporters, he apologized. Now everything is hunky dory. He didn’t mean for it to happen.

Folks, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the intentions here, it would seem obvious, were not necessarily good.

First, according to the New York Times “Mr. Obama said he had not purposely misled anyone. He said it was always his intention that no one should lose a plan he wanted to keep.”

If that was true, then the caveats and codicils that got tucked away in the law and its resulting regulations would not have made policies that administration minions decided were not good enough for people to have had to be dropped if they changed one twit after a certain date would not have been written. But they were and that was with malice aforethought. It became a way to get the insurance companies to drop current “inadequate” policies and replace them with the politically acceptable policies mandated by the administration.

IF the president didn’t know this was going to happen, then folks, he is a dolt. Either that or his staff is about the most incompetent group of yahoos that have ever worked on Pennsylvania Avenue.  It is not like years ago, people in the various executive branch departments were not saying: “Oh, yeah, and large percentages of existing policies are going to go away when we put this new stuff into effect.”

Did he just turn a deaf ear to these reports, or did his staff shield him from them? I don’t know, but in either case, he screwed up as a leader and that is what we hired him for (well, at least some of voted to hire him).

That there are a whole lot of incompetent senior executive service people still holding their jobs is really telling. The president is saying, admitting, that there is no accountability in his administration (and we thought Dubya was bad).

I hope that management and leadership programs across the nation are taking copious notes on how NOT to be a leader. Unfortunately for the United States, our president is giving a lesson in how to do that.

Politics should stop being politics

Obama: Congress should stop bickering

The President thinks that the Republicans and Democrats should stop fighting and arguing over how the federal government spends its money. They should stop “manufacturing” crises and stop being “out of touch” with the American people.

TIME OUT!

Mr. President, what world are you living on, because it sure ain’t the same one the rest of America lives on.

Sorry, but the Republicans and the Democrats pretty much are doing what they are supposed to do: Represent the interests of the people who sent them there. Now that does not mean everybody in their district or state, but the people who voted and supported them. That, Mr. President, is how a representative democracy works. You don’t like that, then move to a different universe.

I know that I am a voice in the wilderness here, but, people, we have to understand that the US does not speak with one voice. It never has and it never will. Currently there are more that 310 million of us, each with our own mind and our own view of how things ought to be. Neither of the major political parties represents the view of the majority of Americans – especially on every issue. That is what makes politics politics.

Mr. President, you want Congress to pass a budget? Then call Harry Reid over in the Senate and tell him to pass the next budget bill that comes over from the House as is. Don’t play around with it, just pass it. And then you sign it. But, you and I know that isn’t going to happen.

And it hasn’t happened since the Republicans became the majority in the House. Every year, since 2009, the House dutifully passes the various and sundry authorizations and appropriations bills (like some 26 of them each year) and every year during that time the Senate has piddled and diddle and not one thing has it resolved. Why? Because the Democrats won’t accept what the Republicans have passed.

Every year, the Congress ends up passing a “continuing resolution” that, I guess, now extends all the way back to 2009 (it actually doesn’t but that is a different story). As Pappy used to say: That is one heck (he WAS a gentleman after all) of a way to run a railroad.

All continuing resolutions do is kick the can down the road to be dealt with again whenever it runs out.

So, the problem has not been in the House. It has been doing its job all along. And the problem is not with the Senate Republicans; they are just standing by what their House brethren have sent over. No, the problem lies on the other side of the aisle.

Now, I will guarantee you that you will not see it reported that way because it does not fit the establishment narrative of the problem.

I saw this back in 1994 when the GOP first took the House after being the minority party for more than 40 years. The establishment media was in a quandary. Over 40 years the reporters and pundits had established where they could go to get information and where the levers of power were. In an election, all that was washed away and it upset them. No longer could they go to the “usual suspects” and get the low-down on what was going on the backrooms and the cloakrooms of Capitol Hill. For a reporter who has spent years developing news source relationships, that is a very disconcerting feeling.

The new folks in power on the Hill, a bit chary of those who had developed such deep relations with their opponents, were less than welcoming to the established reporter and pundit class. So the feeling became mutual and the media bias grew to a deeper chasm.

Now, Mr. President, I know that neither you, nor any of your staff, or anyone else of note or power will read my ramblings (well, maybe someone at the NSA who is bored to death might), but please quit blaming others for your own lack of leadership.

The budgetary train wreck, the health care train wreck, the foreign policy train wreck, they are all your responsibility. Don’t slough them off on your minions. Don’t ask your co-equals in government (the ones who are to set the polices and priorities that you are to execute with the resources they give you) to do things that you apparently are unwilling to do.

Compromise is a two-way street and Congress is a co-equal with the Presidency (as is the Supreme Court). That is how the American republic was designed and how it is supposed to work. (Not by executive order and writ, as you just demonstrated with the setting up of new panels, etc., to sidestep the role of the uncooperative Congress – AND that is yet another rambling I will not digress into)

Nuff Said. Have a nice day. 

New Narrative: GOP moves goal posts

CNN: GOP changes demands to resolve impasse

I love politics … because it is so predictable … at least in the US.

Ok, to be out front – the way I see it – the shutdown could be ended today if the SENATE would pass the funding resolutions in its current hopper.

That won’t happen because the SENATE is holding out for one big omnibus continuing resolution to fund ALL government operations. It is either the omnibus spending bill or no bill – the so-called “clean CR” – according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and President Barack Obama.

However, I am seeing others starting to pick up on the point of view that what the House of Representatives is doing is IN FACT just what those silly dead white men 225 years ago wanted it to do in cases like this when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. This is exactly what those evil “framers” or “founders” of our government expected and wanted the House to do. It is performing its role as a check on the Senate and the Executive Branch (the president) by exercising its power over the purse.

Now, there are those, mainly progressives, who see this as a bad thing (although they were busy trying to defund military operations in Iraq just a few years ago), but it really is what people like James Madison and the others who sweated the summer of 1787 out in Philadelphia to contrive a more perfect union meant to happen.

What those less than three-score of gentlemen did really is quite remarkable, when  you look at the diversity (yes, Virginia, they were a diverse cultural lot) of the group and the interests that they represented.

It indeed was a grand compromise, that no one went home 100 percent satisfied with the result (the biggest rift was over the institution of slavery), but it still put in place a formula for governance that pretty well stood the test of time … until we all got complacent about it and for reasons discussed very well by the guru at Strafor (George Friedman) we have let ideologues grab the wheels of power.

(The roots of how we got here)

Still and yet, the government is functioning pretty much within normal designed operating parameters – despite the rather bizarre rhetoric and talking points being distributed by the leadership of the Democrat Party and its supporters.

As I told one person today, it ain’t time to man the barricades just yet.  Her concerns are well grounded, I told her, and not all people are quite as tolerant and generous as she might be but while we may be in the latter stages of the infamous “Cycle of Democracy”, there always is hope. Hope does spring eternal, despite what we might think in moments of despair as we watch/hear/read the news each day from various sources competing to get us to accept their view of world affairs.

That most of them – at least all those people who talk at us via the TV and Internet these days as well as those who we have elected to lead the government - really are being disingenuous (being charitable here) is most distressing and, as Pappy used to say, you just want to knock some heads together to knock some sense in them.

Does it not seem strange that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can get a chunk of money (some $445 million) while the $100,000 that supposedly goes to the survivors of American service members killed in the line of duty (roughly two dozen since Oct. 1, including four killed in action in Afghanistan) has been suspended because the government can’t afford it?

Or how about a rally on the National Mall by supporters of amnesty for people who have entered the United States without the proper documentation or have overstayed the visits they said they were going to have when groups of aged veterans from World War II are denied access to the open-air memorial on the same mall and threatened with arrest if they come back?

How about people being denied access to their privately owned homes and businesses that happen to have ended up on property owned by the federal government in the creation of various national parks?

Or the National Institutes of Health enrolling a half-dozen or so sick children in special treatment programs even though they have been forbidden to do so by the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office Building next to the White House?

If that does not sound to you like misplaced priorities, then I would question whether you should reexamine those priorities. I definitely think there is some serious misrepresentation of issues going on here.

And no, the federal government is not going to default on its debt payments, unless someone in the executive branch really screws things up.

A) Under existing funding legislation (and that already passed by the House) funds are available to pay the interest on the national debt … hence, no need for a default because that is what is required. It is when you don’t make those payments that you default. It is a bit like paying your mortgage (even in the worst of times, if all you can do is pay the interest portion, the lender probably will not give you too much of a bad time).

B) The federal government does not need to raise the debt ceiling in order to make these payments, because it takes in enough money in taxes, tariffs, duties, etc., to cover the interest due along with a whole bunch of other things.

The debt ceiling debate is sort of like arguing over which credit cards you are going to try to pay this month, with one side let’s just raise the credit limit and the other side saying that it might be a good idea to start cut back on how much we are spending.

Unfortunately, what we are being treated to daily by those we have hired to run our government is a whole lot less than the truth and a whole lot of stuff to try to scare us into demanding that one political party’s viewpoint is the only acceptable one.

I don’t think so.

But that is enough of my random thoughts for this go around.

Nuff said.

I hate being prescient

Senate committee passes bill to define "journalist"
Forty years ago, as a young college journalist, I attended the national convention of Sigma Delta Chi as a student delegate. SDX, as it was called at the time, was what is now known as the Society of Professional Journalists.

At that meeting, during a session on the Watergate scandal involving the Nixon Administration, I got to ask a question of Benjamin Bradley, then the executive editor of the Washington Post and the response I got was “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

My question? It was simple and straight forward. Mr. Bradley was on a panel and I directed my question to him:

“Sir, in light of all the investigative reporting the Post has done on the Watergate affair, what is your view of shield laws to protect journalists?”

There was this long pause, and then Mr. Bradley said, “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

What followed was a lively discussion between the seven panelists (including one from the Watergate Special Prosecutor’s office (OSP)  who was in charge of negotiating with the media over getting information they had uncovered in their investigations). At one point, Mr. Bradley revealed that the Post that day had been served with a subpoena from the OSP, at which the poor fellow from the OSP about twisted his head off to look at the Post editor. You see, he was the first step in issuing those subpoenas and legal writs and he knew nothing about this one.

Now, I think Mr. Bradley and I shared a problem with Shield Laws. You see, the protections of the First Amendment apply to all American citizens, not just to people who work for newspapers, magazines or TV and radio stations (add in Cable Networks now).

So, if you are trying to protect freedom of the press by shielding reporters, etc., from having to divulge sources of information that ordinary citizens can be forced to divulge by court order then you have to define who is protected and who is not protected.

That is a very difficult problem because freedom of the press, as I have repeatedly pointed out over the intervening years, belongs to everybody, whether he or she is employed by a news gathering and disseminating organization or just somebody who is passing out leaflets on the street corner (or blogging on the internet). The people who promote shield laws want to make themselves protected like priests and lawyers but in each of those cases you have to meet a minimum requirement and basically be recognized (or licensed) by the government for the protect to apply.

My contention is that when you start “licensing” journalists then you are infringing on the freedom of the press of those people who are not employed by “media”. You see, for the court to say who is included in this special class of people, then somebody has to define what is qualifying news gathering organization.

If the court (government) only recognizes (therefore allows) only certain people the privilege of protecting their sources, then two things happen.

1. The equality before the law that is supposed to be the great hallmark of our system of governance is breached big time.
2. The government gets to say who gets to play and who does not and that opens the door wide for the suppression of unpopular views or even simple dissents from the consensus viewpoint.

Note that there is no way to define a journalist without running afoul of this trap, as I have patiently explained to an number of attorneys who were advocating journalist shield laws in a couple of states. They admitted I was right but argued that it was for a greater good.

My response to that is who set up journalists as gods and what requirements do they have to meet to be so designated. I say that because in my 30-plus years as a working journalist at 12 different newspapers across the United States, I have found many a good reporter / photographer / “journalist” who had none of the degrees or certifications that would qualify them as a “professional” other than their contributions to the publication that I was working for at the time.

I quit one editor job after the publisher told me that if he ever got sued, he was going to sue me. And he wanted me to play watchdog on local government officials? Oh boy, I got out of there as fast as I could.

Now, it seems the federal government is going to define who is a journalist and who is not. I warned people that this would happen if they started enacting shield laws. It also was just the first step in controlling the media. I repeat that warning now.

This is a bad law and I hope it won’t go anywhere.

Benghazi, Petraeus, Obama

What is the old saw about tangled webs and deception … absolutely has one shaking their heads as we watch the political-media circus that will come down around the hearings on the resignation of former CIA Director David Patraeus, his mysterious affairs and what happened in Benghazi two months ago.
First of all, it doesn’t take a savant or rocket scientist to figure out that there obviously more things at play here than meets the eye. Exactly what they are, I haven’t a clue. But you can be certain the media mavens and internet pundits are going to have an absolute field day covering this and trying to spin whatever limited facts are out there to whatever advantage they can leverage for their political agenda.
There are so many cover-ups going on that all the misdirection would make a magician proud. This almost sounds like a Tom Clancy novel, but for the fact that it really does involve real people doing real things in real time. Just how it will all shake out is beyond me but I am getting my share of chuckles about it.
Why am I chuckling? Because it is all spinning so fast and out of control that the handlers don’t know which way to go … and that I find outrageously humorous. You see, politicians, bureaucrats and progressives are control freaks and this circus train already has gone off the rails.
But that aside, I do want to make one point about the sad affair at Benghazi: The moment the ambassador went to the “consulate” he was a dead man. There was nothing that anybody could have done.
You see, and you people addicted to instant gratification take note, when the first alarms went up, the only resources that could have any impact on the situation were those resources on the ground in Benghazi, and there was never a chance they would be enough.
Yes, you can fault all sorts of people for not anticipating the ambush, but that doesn’t change the fact that no matter what miracles military people in Italy or Spain or Germany or the US pulled off, to expect a response that would have been in the air or on the ground in less than 12 hours (by which time it was all over but the shouting) is absolutely ignorant.
The problem, as I have pointed out before is not tactical, but logistical.
Let’s assume that you send folks from Italy (They are relatively close):
Ok, first you have to assemble your crew. Now I seriously doubt they were sitting there on alert to roll when the first siren sounded. No, let’s get real here folks, they either were in bed or out socializing. So, you have to wake these people up, get them dressed and co-located so they can have some idea of what the emergency is.
Now, if it involves aircraft, you have to check out which planes are fueled, serviced, armed (if necessary) and ready to rock and roll. If not, then your ground crews have to get on the stick and start prepping the birds. Those things don’t happen in instants like they do in video games, they take time … excruciating long time it seems when they are trying to rush the job.
IF you going to insert ground pounders, then you have to issue them all the equipment, ammunition, etc. they need for whatever mission you expect them to do, which means the leaders have to take some time to figure out what that is going to be. Remember, this is a no alert effort here, which means even, if you have a contingency plan, you have to take the plan off the shelf, dust it off, get out the checklists before you can really start moving your people through the process of strapping on armor, arms and ammunition.
Back when I used to cover the XVIII Airborne Corps and the 82^nd Airborne Infantry Division, the standard they had was for the first troops to be wheels up (note I said the first troops) and on their way was 18 hours. They actually hit that mark when they deployed elements of the 16^th Military Police Brigade to St. Croix after the island was hammered by a hurricane in 1989.
So, when you read all the stories about the time lines about what happened that night in Libya, remember the tyranny of the clock and logistics.
Now, I am not absolving the Obama administration for fumbling the explanation following the debacle, nor for ignoring all the warning signs ahead of time.
I am not sure even if Gen. Patraeus’s not necessarily hewing the appropriate narrative as to the role the intelligence agencies played in the post-disaster cover-up about the YouTube video has anything to do with his resignation.
Actually, I suspect that the good general was going to get hammered for other reasons, but then I am being cynical about how things work inside the Beltway of Washington, D.C.
As it is, I am just going to sit back and try to enjoy the circus with all the clowns running around trying to bring the chaos under control.

Status quo ante?

Obama asks passage of tax on rich
President Obama is urging the House of Representatives to pass a Senate-passed bill that would extend the Bush Tax Cuts for those making less than $250,000, while letting the same cuts expire for those making more, thus increasing their tax rates.
I have a radical idea: Just repeal all the Bush tax cuts.
In addition, repeal the bill that chopped what people pay for Social Security and Medicare, don’t extend it.
Do those two things and tax receipts are bound to soar.
Sorry, but I am one of those who thinks that if we are going to have taxes, then the only really fair thing is for everybody to pay them. I know, that is stupid and callous and cruel and heartless to those whose needs exceed their income and therefore deserve not to pay as much as those evil, demonic people who have more than they need.
Granted, I don’t think I really have made more than the median income in my life, so I guess I should side with those who think the wealthy should be stripped of their riches and have it redistributed among those who make less. However, I don’t see it that way.
Sorry, I am an unreconstructed individualist, for the most part. You know one of those people who really, sincerely believes that we are all unique and as individuals deserve to be treated the same by our government(s) under the law, rather than have the government discriminate against us according to some rather arbitrary and capricious standard that is based solely on – as far as I can see – nothing more than jealousy and envy.
I mean we bar discrimination against people for their race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation and so forth these days. It seems to me that if government is supposed to ignore all these factors of the human condition, well … maybe it should just ignore others as well … and treat people as individuals, not as alleged victims or members of this class or another.
I know … I am looking for Utopia again, but I still think the concept is valid and workable if our political leadership would just start thinking about the common weal and not how many votes they just bought. Yet, I am not so sanguine as to expect that will ever happen. Humans being human and all, and envy being about a primordial an instinct as self-preservation, people will continue to sell their votes to those who promise to take from those who have more and give to those who have less, using the power of the government to achieve their ends (rather than do it themselves … but that would be robbery and we can’t have that).
Still, I think, when it comes to taxes, we should just let all the previous tax rate reductions fall by the wayside and go back to whenever and make everybody pay those rates, especially if the rates are not progressive and apply to everybody without any loopholes that exempt certain incomes or certain individual disbursements (like mortgage interest, child care payments, health expenses and any and all other deductions, credits, etc., that currently clutter up our tax codes)
But, I know I am in the minority here, so in obeisance to our recently reelected president, I say … don’t just raise the rates a little bit on the wealthy, really stick it to them. Take all of what they get in income, interest and capital gains (as well as any other source of income) and leave them with no more than $250,001 income per year. Then they will be just like the rest of us poor smucks See how they like to live like us proletarians and plebeians. (Wait a minute, I have never made more than 20 percent of that, so that isn’t fair).

Curious and curiouser

CIA Director Petraeus resigns in sex scandal

Powerful men cheat

Iran attacks US drone in international airspace

You know it isn’t good when things make you question the official narrative but it is getting to the point where certain administration narratives are getting a bit threadbare.

Ok, CIA Director David Patraeus (former Army star and four-star as well as Gen. Betray-us on some fronts) apparently had an affair with his biographer. At least he said he had an extramarital affair with someone. Is that supposed to shock us?

It doesn’t shock me much, but then I remember having a president who allegedly had a number of sexual dalliances but it didn’t drive him to resign. Got him impeached, but the Senate couldn’t go along and accept that those dalliances rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

I don’t suspect that Gen. Patraeus’ dalliance rose to that level either, but I don’t know because I only know what I read in the news. Still, the abruptness of his resignation (according to the official timeline) either speaks very well of the man’s integrity (in that he would resign even before the information went public) or reeks of more nefarious motives, since he was scheduled to address a Congressional hearing next week on how the current administration seems to have bungled its efforts in Libya … as well as its response to the assault on (and subsequent death) of its ambassador to Libya while on a visit to its diplomatic facilities in Benghazi.

What actually strikes me almost humorous is the progressive reaction (on Huffington Post) that find something terribly wrong that “powerful” men seem to keep getting caught in sexual dalliances with women not their wives. Hello, it takes two to tango. I am sorry, but if the woman isn’t out there screaming it was rape, and in fact indicates that it was consensual, then I am not sure how the male half of the equation can be singled out for condemnation. In this case, it is pretty obvious – assuming that the “other party” that has been identified as being involved – that it indeed was consensual, then the trotting out of the “bad” men scenario seems a bit off base.

But I guess, given that Petraeus – in many other situations – appears to have been pretty much a straight shooter (unfortunately with the usual set of human failings and frailties), it helps to do what you can to cast whatever shadows on him when he is probably going to end up in front of a hostile House committee being interrogated under oath. Who knows what he might say that deviates from the official line put out by the administration. Now, at least, administration defenders can point to his obviously moral shortcomings and say that anything he says from now on can be discounted.

But, as I said, things are just a bit curious with the timing not only of this resignation, but the announcement the day after election was over that the week before the Iranians were busily shooting at a U.S. reconnaissance drone monitoring the approaches to the ports in Iraq and Kuwait. Of course, nothing nefarious there … the administration didn’t want to make it a political issue … which of course it would of and probably should have been … but that is something we know our current presidential administration would never do.

You couple that with the relief of the commander of a task group in the Arabian Sea, the fiasco at Benghazi, and you start to wonder: What the heck is going on here?

Random post-election thoughts

First, despite all the wailing and caterwauling about all the things that were going to go wrong with the Nov. 6 election, I think it came off rather well. Yes, I was not happy with the outcome, but I think that the process worked just like it was supposed to do. That, I contend is a good thing and stands America in an rare but nice place to be.
Second, I found it humorous that the UN election observers were appalled, or is that astounded, apparently at the lengths American election officials trust voters to do their part honestly. Imagine, not requiring positive identification or marking those people who already voted so they can’t just go somewhere else and vote again. I hope those progressives, etc., who are so upset with the idea of requiring a photo id to vote take note that the people in Europe and other continents shake their heads at our naiveté.
Third, I find it exceedingly humorous, that all those progressives and “modernists” who want to do away with the vilified Electoral College system now seem to be trumpeting that since Obama got over 300 votes (when he just needed 270 to win) gives him some sort of mandate to enact their agenda. For the same reasons that they don’t like the Electoral College, is the same reason that Obama’s victory does not represent a mandate. If there was more than 2 percent between the popular vote totals, then a case could be made, however, since there wasn’t, it reflects the fact that the nation remains one that still is looking for a consensus about what vision of the future is the one the country should pursue. To treat it otherwise is to risk escalating that division even further, and we don’t need that.
Fourth, I am, somewhat perversely I admit, glad that President Obama won the popular vote as well as the Electoral vote. I would hate to have seen what would be the public reaction if he had won the Electoral vote and not the popular vote. I suspect a dozen years from now, we would still be hearing tales how he stole the election.
Fifth, sort of a continuation of the above, but I am very glad we aren’t having to endure all sorts of ballot challenges in various courts because the loser wasn’t gracious enough to accept the initial vote counts and felt the need to go to court before they were even in.
Sixth, I have to commend former Massachusetts Gov. Romney for his gracious concession speech. Despite the fact that he didn’t instantaneously call Obama to concede when the networks “called” the election for the president (which one of my progressive friends complained about on his Facebook page about 10 minutes after the networks began announcing their projections as to the winner), Romney proved that he is a class act … but then again, class or no class, he lost and whatever impact he could of/would of/may have had is irrelevant. I just hope people take his message to heart.
My own message to borrow from Winston Churchill:
In Conflict: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance (Tempered by Humility – remember you lost)
In Victory: Magnanimity
If we are to bind up the wounds, the magnanimity is probably to most import thing to remember, but often the easiest to forget.

Well, I am glad that is over …

Americans and gridlock - very good article

Why Obama won?

Well, the 2012 presidential election is over … whew!

My initial reaction: Disappointment.

Not that I did not expect it, but I would much rather President Obama had not won re-election. Why? Because of the two evils, I felt that Obama has the potential for wreaking far more havoc than Romney did. But then we will never know, will we?

As for the future, I take solace in the fact that Congress remains divided. In that, I agree with George Friedman above, the American people have chosen gridlock because – contrary to the views of some Obama supporters – the nation remains strongly divided between two visions and – despite some progressives feeling of vindication – it will continue to remain that way.

However, I do think that my dear spouse (viewing the election from her Canadian perspective) pretty much hit the nail on the head. People vote for free stuff and that pretty much was Obama’s message.

It is echoed in the old saw about democracies that goes, loosely paraphrased: They only work until the voters figure out they can vote themselves other people’s money out of the common treasury and that cat is done got out of the bag in the U.S.

So, we are going to have a president who will continue to play class warfare and wealth envy to advance his agendas. Ok, I can live with that. That is what democracy is about anyway. Besides, since I probably won’t be alive all that much longer (10, maybe 15 years at the outside, and probably less given my health), it won’t be my problem.

Unfortunately, my kids and my grandkids will have to deal with the fallout, just like my generation had to live with the fallout from my parents’ and grandparents’ decisions (only I think they were better deciders than the current 21^st generation crop)

Still, the reactions of some progressives I know was an even greater disappointment to me. I mean, basically telling the 50 percent of the nation that did not vote for their candidate that they can F___ O__, does not comport with what I see as magnanimity in victory (sorry to borrow your line, Winston). It is attitudes like that that lay the foundations for violent confrontations later (See the Treaty of Versailles and its aftermath). But again, I won’t have to deal with that.

As for why Obama won? It is simple: More people voted for him than any of the other candidates. Considering that 14 million fewer people voted in 2012 than in 2008, that also is a sad commentary on the American people. Still it is a tribute to the Obama campaign machine that it was able to get more of its supporters to go to the polls than his opponents and you have to respect that.

Could Romney have done better? Does it matter? No. Sorry, no do overs. We have to live with the choices we make as a nation.

I really hope that my cynical old person is wrong and the progressives are right and that their world view really will make everything peachy keen and peace and happiness. However, I suspect that historian in me sees a rerun of the first few decades of the last century. I know, that really is pessimistic, but what the heck – humans are humans and we keep doing the same things over and over again expecting different results.

If we look back at what actually worked and helped create what we have and took that as a model, well … who knows what might happen.

Instead, we will go forward and blaze essentially a new trail. I hope people aren’t looking for an easy time of it, because when you blaze a new trail it is hard work because nobody has laid down a path for you to follow and sometimes bad things happen and you end up in places you didn’t want to be.

And in the end, President Obama may – it is possible I could be wrong here – fundamentally transform what America is as he said he was going to do when he was elected in 2008. I am not sure that is what people really want, nor do I think that people really understand what that might mean, but that has been their choice.

Remember, life is about choices and we have to live with the ones we make. Nobody – not the government, family or friends – can protect us from the consequences of those choices. They may be able to ameliorate the impact, but we still will have to endure the consequences. I fear that our desire to make our society “fair” and “equal” has forgotten that we are individuals, unique and definitely not equal (the equality should be before the law and government and not the equality of outcome or results, which are two different things).

Change will come to America, just like the weather will change, and the cycle of life, and governance, will continue. Funny about that, but it just seems to go on and on.

When did we all become so cynical?

I have an online acquaintance who asked me if I believe President Barack Obama when he says something.
I told him I did unless there was something in the facts on the ground that led me to think that I was going to have be willing to suspend my disbelief … or in other words, until the facts on the ground seemed to contradict the words coming from the mouth.
This came up in an online conversation where he contended that GOP candidate Mitt Romney was lying about how he got the infamous binders alluded to the second debate with President Obama. Apparently, the bulk of the “binders” came from an advocacy group called MassGAP that had prepared possible lists of appointment candidates for both candidates for Massachusetts governor in 2002. The non-partisan or bi-partisan group says it was the group that supplied Gov.-elect Romney with the binders.
The disagreement here, apparently, is over whether the group marched down, dropped the binders on Romney’s desk and said, “Take your pick.” Meaning that Romney made no effort to include women in the cabinet and was forced to do it by MassGAP and therefore he is lying about what happened. (My friend’s version)
Or did Romney look at the list of candidates given to him by his staff and say “is this the best you can do?” Then tell his staff to try again, and this time for political cover, include more women. Then the staff took advantage of the offer from MassGAP and accepted the binders they offered. (My view)
Now, I must point out that before this point, he basically accused me of blithely posting my view as just so much misinformation.
Here is the video clip: CBS News – Romney: I had binders full of women
You watch it and you decide which better fits the available facts.
My point being is that what we often see is colored by the prisms of our preconceptions and what we want to believe. This is natural and to be expected.
Now, I must admit: I have lots of problems with President Obama and his policies. I think his vision of the way the world is and the way America should be are wrong. However, having said that, I do not accuse him of lying or misleading people without some evidence to give me reason. I may disagree with what he says, but I am not going to say he is a liar.
Most of the time, as I see it, he or his staff are “spinning” the facts to have us accept a certain interpretation of the facts. Some of the times, one has to do a certain amount of suspension of disbelief to accept the party line, and other times it is much easier to swallow. The same holds true for the Republican candidates. They always are spinning the facts to fit the narrative that they want voters and constituents to believe.
As usual, the truth is somewhere in between.
For example, do I believe that the tax cut plans as reportedly put out by the Romney Campaign are all they are cracked up to be – pro or con? Not on your life. I sometimes think that Romney takes a more realistic view of what he might accomplish. (There being an old saying about Washington: The President proposes; Congress disposes) Basically, what I have heard him say at the first two debates is that “yes, I would like to cut certain tax deductions, close some loopholes and lower tax rates across the board, but until I can negotiate the particulars with Congress, I really don’t know how that will work out.” That sounds to me like an honest assessment of the situation.
On the other hand, what I hear President Obama saying is that we will raise the tax rates on the “wealthy” (leaving open exactly what being “wealthy” means) and that is going to solve our deficit as well as pay for all the new things coming under Obamacare. That absolutely is impossible. There ain’t enough money in the “wealthy’s” piggy banks to pull that off. Besides, that smacks of killing the golden goose before she lays her eggs.
Now, the question is: Is Obama lying or is Romney lying.
I don’t know. But as an article of faith, I am going to say that I think for the most part both men are honest and decent people. They are neither vicious, nor cruel nor evil. Their world views are just different. They see the world through different prisms and therefore see what needs to be done in different lights.
There is a good question: Are things better today than they were four years ago? Do you think the policies of the last four years, extended and broadened over the next four years are going to improve the situation or not? Do you think what plans Romney and Ryan have articulated, if implemented and however sketchy they are, will make a difference? Will that difference be better or worse?
Honestly, my jury is STILL out, but I know it is leaning heavily more in one direction that another.
And, just for the record, I didn’t vote for Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter in 1980. I voted for John Anderson and that is saying more about who I have voted for in 40 years because I really do believe in the sanctity of the secret ballot.
As for the binders’ discussion: It is a tempest in a teapot, as Pappy used to say.

Mountain out of a molehill

Binders, sminders

As Pappy would have said: Tis a mountain out of molehill.

Jeemney Christmas. What is with all the uproar about presidential candidate Mitt Romney saying he got “binders” filled with women’s resumes when he went looking for women to fill out his cabinet when he was governor of Massachusetts?

Hey, give the guy some credit. He did do the sexist thing and tried to do affirmative action for women. What was he supposed to say: I got a pile of resumes or a stack of applications? This has got to be the most senseless news story in … well at least a couple of weeks.

I will say one thing for the businessman-turned-politician at least he had his staff trained halfway decently. The boss asks for information and a good staff will organize it for him, so he doesn’t waste time. It seems to me that his staff did just that: Organized the resumes for his review. And for this he is getting blasted and blistered?

Methinks some people have their head in the wrong place.

No, it seems that some of our progressive and liberal friends are trying to make an issue out of something that isn’t an issue, or at least shouldn’t be in my estimation. I wish someone would explain to me ( as Pappy used to say) in words of one syllable or less so I could understand exactly what the problem is because I don’t see the problem. Ok, I am a male in my sixties, but I don’t see what the problem is hiring women to fill positions if they are qualified, pay them the same rate as any guy you would hire for the position (note: you are paying for the job being done, not for the person to fill it).

Still, we are three days after the debate, and we still are flapping our jaws about a non-issue.

To me the unanswered question was who pulled the security teams from Libya in August? Who denied the U.S. ambassador to Libya’s request for addition security and why? Why was the White House apparently clueless when the flunkies in the State Department knew pretty much what was going on? Was it really the Secretary of State’s fault that the real-time reports of the eight-hour gun-battle (including mortar fire, rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns) by an estimated-platoon-sized contingent of terrorist drove the Americans and their staff and guards into bunkers was not transmitted to at least the National Security Advisor, if not the Secretary of Defense, as well as the President?

Sorry, that seems to bear more on the job of being president then whether or not he reviews candidates for cabinet or staff positions by having their resumes presented to him in binders.

I am a retired journalist, actually a retired newspaper editor, and the current state of journalism absolutely revolts me when it comes to campaign coverage. Of course, I come from a different era, when you didn’t have to deal with the passions of the social media.

For example, I pointed out to one of the people whom I have considerable respect as a thoughtful person that a picture that she had posted on her Facebook page was factually incorrect … and she told me I basically was being an idiot because it didn’t matter. Everybody did it. Well, I guess, I have to apologize to her, but damn, I thought accuracy and the truth was more important than just tearing down people, places, organizations and things you disagree with.

At least when I differ with someone, I do try to at least explain why I think my observations are valid. But just to say: Well, that is how it is done of Facebook and everybody does it, appalls me. I guess personal integrity is passé and personal credibility is something no one cares about.

No wonder America is going to hades in the handbasket.

Progressive hypocrisy is almost funny

I finding interesting, if not exceedingly hypocritical, when I read various critiques by liberal, progressives who make no pretense of their disdain for people of faith that fault those people for failing to adhere to the progressive’s image of what their faith should be.
Most liberals and progressives will admit that they basically are secular humanists who believe that religious faith is a mistake and belief in such dogma is leading individuals, if not societies, astray.
The thesis, as I understand it, is that there is good and there is bad, but only according to the definitions as provided by their secular viewpoint. To them, these values are absolutes, but everyone else’s is relative. I may be wrong in this analysis, but I don’t think I am far off.
So, it somewhat surprises me when they criticize followers a two-millennia-old Jewish rabbi, cum Christian messiah and prophet, by quoting their interpretation of that prophet’s doctrine as it has been handed down, interpreted, re-interpreted and re-re-interpreted over all those generations, which they don’t believe in, and expect to be taken seriously. That strikes me as being a stellar height of hubris.
And then, of course, if these people happen to hold what might be conflicting thoughts on what they think is right and proper, then the liberals and progressives call down all sorts of hell and damnation because these people might have a view that reconciles these differences and still cling to their faith.
It really is almost humorous, if it wasn’t so serious.
It is, almost by definition, an assault on individual liberty. You know, the kind that Americans have enshrined in the First Amendment to their Constitution.
I mean, if you don’t believe in the dogma as these progressives do, then you are condemned and chastised. You are, as it is said, “a bad person”. Some people might even go so far as to call you names like “lying bastards” who are out to subjugate women and the poor.
Now, that might be true, but I would be willing to bet that it is a false characterization. But then I remember, it is Election Time in America (Sorry, my Canadian relatives, but I had to borrow your line – It is Hockey Night in Canada) and this is what is to be expected from people on opposing sides of the political fence.
I hope everybody enjoys the next two presidential debates between President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Romney. It will be so interesting to watch the vitriol spewing forth from each sides’ supporters … unless people shock me and actually talk civilly about the candidates.
An example of what I speak

Boy, the Democrats must be getting desperate

Hillary says it is all her fault in Benghazi
Clinton falls on her sword claiming responsibility for failures in Benghazi
I guess President Barack Obama’s campaign handlers are panicking. Somehow they talked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to take the fall for the lack of security at the diplomatic facility (I won’t elevate it to the level of a real consulate) in Benghazi last month.
It took a month, but Clinton finally said, in this, the buck stops with me. Nice try, Ms. Rodham, but your credibility was shot back with Monica and the other girls.
Look, Clinton wants to run in 2116, so Bill and she can be co-presidents again. To do that, she has to smooth the waters with the wheels in smoke-filled rooms (ok, they aren’t smoke filled any more) out back so they will help her get the nomination. This is the price she pays: Get Barry re-elected. Deflect any and all criticism from him.
Fall on your sword, woman.
Well, I am sorry, Mrs. Clinton, but President Obama, and his invisible National Security Council advisor are responsible. If you didn’t coordinate your actions with them, then they screwed you over and let you take the fall. You should have coordinated those types of requests with the White House because, as you know very well, they have very large foreign policy implications. And while you are delegated the task of executing the foreign policy of the United States, if you go free-lancing it without discussing it with the boss, then you will find yourself in a very deep pile of horse manure.
You see, because that is the way things work. When you work for someone, you don’t free-lance the big stuff … and when it comes to terrorist attacks, it is all big stuff.
So, it would seem that logic would dictate the reason, the day before the second presidential debate of the season, that somebody, anybody, takes a sword for the embarrassing debacle that is Libya and the ambassador’s death. Vice President Biden tried to blame the intelligence people, and the DNI tried falling on his sword, but it seems that no one bought that. So, now it is Miss Hillary’s turn.
Please, Mister President, step up to the plate and do your mea culpa. It would make you look much more presidential and prop up your leadership image. To do anything else, merely mocks it. (And it makes Hillary look presidential and you look like a jerk)

Only in America

Billy Krystal on Letterman as Romney

It is one of the things I absolutely love about being an American: Being able to mock and parody people – especially public figures like political candidates – with virtual impunity.

Billy Krystal, who is a very funny comedic actor, just leaves me in stitches all the time and he doesn’t fail here in his appearance on the late night TV show with David Letterman.

Now, I know that Letterman supports President Obama, as does Krystal, and that doesn’t bother me at all. It bothers me that Letterman seems so upset that his entertainment show apparently will not be a campaign stop for the Romney campaign bus. Get real, man, you obviously are hostile, so why go there?

Still, I think Krystal is a gem and this was absolutely hilarious. Besides, there is an element of truth to it, which is what makes parody and satire so effective.

A puzzled person

What is it about this election that makes people hate so viscerally? I haven’t a clue, but I see it even in people that I hold in some respect.
I see it when individuals call political candidates “lying bastards” and other deeply offensive slurs. Why is it our language has become so coarsened that such pejoratives are acceptable … especially in public discourse? I see it when people attack others for disagreeing with them in terms that defy civility.
I watched the presidential debate on Wednesday night, and either I am totally blind or I didn’t see any flat out lying … and I certainly didn’t see any bastards. Oh, did they tell the absolute unvarnished truth? Give me a break. However, there was truth in everything that they said, depending on how you want to parse the facts. It was in the spin, rather than the facts, the mistruths were slung.
You see, I have become painfully aware that we all seem to view Plato’s shadows differently. We view things, I have come to realize, through different prisms and some of them are starkly different than others.
It makes me question my own reality and as hard as I can, I find it hard to find empirical evidence that disputes the perceptions I have gained over the six decades of my life.
Yes, politicians shade the truth to fit their cause. There was plenty of that on Wednesday night, on both sides. Maybe I hold a too high a standard to call out people on “lying” rather than telling the truth from a particular point of view.
So I look at what people say, and ask why? What is it that drives people to be so visceral in their hatred of their political opponents?
And then I step back and I look around the world at conditions in other countries and I realize that Americans are not any different. No, we are humans, just like everybody else. It would be nice to think we are “exceptional” but as humans we are not.
We do have an exceptional form of government and an exceptional (well, less now that at other times, maybe) economic system, but as a people, there is little different from others around the world. The dogmas may be different, even the ideologies, but the essence of our human nature is not different.
As I watched the debate, it was obvious that the challenger was beating the incumbent badly. It seemed such a mismatch. Mitt Romney came across as the civil individual, while President Barack Obama came across as angry and offended that anyone would challenge him. That bothered me a lot.
Now, I don’t know what issues the president was dealing with that night, but he definitely wasn’t cool, calm and collected.
Now, I know that Romney impressed me, but I could also see how he was parsing his facts in ways that could be construed in various ways as to make him seem like he was not telling the truth.
The classic being the difference between tax rates and tax revenues, profits and profit margins, tax credits and tax deductions, and if you don’t understand the differences between those terms, please look them up. Educate yourselves.
Tax Rate vs Tax Revenue
Profit vs Profit margin
Tax Credit vs Tax Deduction
So, when Romney said he was going to lower tax rates but keep them revenue neutral, it really isn’t an oxymoron. Economists will tell you something about what is called the Laffer Curve which is the point that Romney was trying to make.  (Laffer Curve explained.)  While it is difficult to chart exactly how the curve will be under any given tax rate situation, it really is not hard to understand how it works. Most people don’t understand.
Most people think, that the higher the rate, the more the government will get in taxes, and history has shown that to be false in the 1960s, the 1980s and again, in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Still, it bothers me that people I respect very much somehow see the world through such different prisms.
I joked with one of them, who was saying that the very rich should pay so much more in taxes, that since he made more than I did, would he send some of his money to me. I mean he is richer than I am, or so it seems. (Well, since I now have rent a two-bedroom apartment and he apparently owns a small farm and has access to a condominium in a very expensive building – at least by my standards as I would never been able to even consider owning either, while acting as the COO for a software gaming company that has the rights to a few of the top selling games of the 1990s and at least one or two of the top rated games for the latest IPODs in the 2010s, would make him appear to be more wealthy than I am, living as I do.) He got very upset with me, for making such a suggestion, since his company is a restart of the 1990s version, and said I was “enjoying my retirement.”
Again, we probably are making asses of ourselves – you know the old cliché that when we ASSUME you are making an ASS of yoU and ME.
However, my point was what gives him the right to demand that others pay higher taxes to transfer their wealth to others, if I don’t have the same right to make that demand of him. However, I think it all got lost in translation.
And maybe that is what puzzles me the most: We all seem to have lost any sense of humor. Hey, given my life, one has to look back at it and laugh. Otherwise, you probably would either be crying or committing suicide – neither of which option appeals to me right now.
Still, if you push me really hard, I would have to say I know who I am not voting for … now if I just could figure out who to vote for that will most effectively represent what I believe. I still am left puzzled.